Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 121 of 327 (507259)
05-03-2009 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Peg
05-03-2009 6:20 AM


Re: Offspring and eternal life
quote:
purpledawn writes:
The term father is not exclusive to offspring. Father in the dictionary
exactly right, just as the scriptures show that the term 'seed' is not exclusive to offspring. The term has a variety of meanings in scripture. An example is in the case of Luke 8:11 "Now the illustration means this: The seed is the word of God" Here Jesus applies 'seed' to Gods word...it has nothing to do with offspring here.
So why, in the instance of Isaiah 53, do you reject a figurative use of the word 'seed'?
In the parable itself the seeds are plant seeds. The people of the time understood agriculture and understood the problems of planting seeds in good and bad soil. So Jesus explains to his disciples that in the story the seeds represent the word of God etc., etc.
I don't reject a figurative use. The use of the word seed in Isaiah is a figurative use. The way it is used by Isaiah means children/descendants, seed being figurative for sperm!
You haven't shown me that the word seed in Isaiah's time was used to describe followers.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Peg, posted 05-03-2009 6:20 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Peg, posted 05-03-2009 7:49 AM purpledawn has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 122 of 327 (507260)
05-03-2009 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by bluescat48
05-03-2009 7:40 AM


Re: Herod the Great
bluescat48 writes:
You just proved my point that the dates are all speculative, and cannot be trusted no matter what the source. The fact that all these witings occured long after the fact further dilutes their credibility.
this is why i trust the bible more then i trust secular sources. The bible writers on the other hand, relayed facts under Gods direction and therefore I find no reason to doubt the bibles historical accuracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by bluescat48, posted 05-03-2009 7:40 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by bluescat48, posted 05-03-2009 7:58 AM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 123 of 327 (507261)
05-03-2009 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by purpledawn
05-03-2009 7:44 AM


Re: Offspring and eternal life
purpledawn writes:
I don't reject a figurative use. The use of the word seed in Isaiah is a figurative use. The way it is used by Isaiah means children/descendants, seed being figurative for sperm!
please quantify the statement with the reasoning behind it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by purpledawn, posted 05-03-2009 7:44 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by purpledawn, posted 05-03-2009 9:35 AM Peg has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 124 of 327 (507262)
05-03-2009 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Peg
05-03-2009 7:48 AM


Re: Herod the Great
this is why i trust the bible more then i trust secular sources. The bible writers on the other hand, relayed facts under Gods direction and therefore I find no reason to doubt the bibles historical accuracy.
That is just subjective reasoning on your part. I find no such direction.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Peg, posted 05-03-2009 7:48 AM Peg has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 125 of 327 (507269)
05-03-2009 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Peg
05-03-2009 7:49 AM


Re: Offspring and eternal life
quote:
please quantify the statement with the reasoning behind it.
Been there, done that. Message 48 and Message 106
Suffering Servant-Jewish Interpretation
It can be easily demonstrated that, when (zera) is used in the Hebrew Bible in reference to children, it exclusively refers to biological descendants. In Isaiah 53:10, however, the term (zera) is not a "stand alone" noun; it is an idiomatic expression that involves a verb in conjunction with the noun, i.e., the Hebrew expression is (yir'eh zera), literally, [he] shall see seed. [The KJV added the term his before the word seed — this is simply not congruent with the Hebrew text. The Hebrew term for his seed is the word (zar'o), which is not the word that appears in this verse.] When idiomatic expressions in the Hebrew Bible are formed by combining a verb with the compound noun (zera), whatever its application may be, the reference is always to physical seed. Relevant examples from the Hebrew Bible are: (mazri'a zera), yielding seed, (Gen 1:11,12); (vehaqeim zera), and [you] establish offspring, (Gen 38:8); (zar'acha asher tizra) your seed that you will sow (Is 30:23); (u'nehayeh mei'avinu zara) and let us bring to life seed from our father (Gen 19:32,34); (bemoshech ha'zara) the one who carries the seed [for sowing] (Amos 9:13). The idiomatic expression (yir'eh zera) is similar to these examples, it refers to one who will be able to procreate and see his descendants. Although this idiomatic expression appears only once in the Hebrew Bible, at Isaiah 53:10, there is a similar expression, (ra'ah vanim), [he] saw sons, that is used several times, and it clearly demonstrates that seeing seed/children refers to having and seeing biological descendants. In the following passage, the reader is told here that Joseph saw his own descendants of several generations.
It is also important to note the fact that (zera) is the Hebrew term for semen/sperm, which supports the notion that the term (zera) exclusively refers to progeny, to real, physical descendants, and not to figurative (spiritual) children.
I've shown plenty of support for my position and reasoning. You haven't shown me that Isaiah doesn't mean real children or that he means spiritual children/followers. Stop stalling and show some real support for what you claim.
You yourself said in Message 107:
Peg writes:
But Isaiah wasnt into creative journalism...he was a prophet who wrote under inspiration. 'Seed' was not a 'creative' writing method back then. It was simply a common term that everyone understood to mean decedents.
So why are you trying to tell me it doesn't mean descendant?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Peg, posted 05-03-2009 7:49 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Peg, posted 05-04-2009 6:20 AM purpledawn has replied

Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 126 of 327 (507299)
05-03-2009 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
04-29-2009 4:07 AM


Re: Isaiah
Are you really using a series of books that have no real world evidence to support their stories, as evidence of a "fulfilled prophecy" that any Jew would have access to?
I could write my own story that involves an individual fulfilling Is 53... does that make it true? Of course not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2009 4:07 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2009 2:29 PM Michamus has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 127 of 327 (507301)
05-03-2009 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Michamus
05-03-2009 2:24 PM


Re: Isaiah
Either you're replying to the wrong message or you've badly misunderstood it. In fact I even raise the point that the Gosple stories could be based on Isaiah 53.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Michamus, posted 05-03-2009 2:24 PM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Michamus, posted 05-03-2009 3:52 PM PaulK has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 128 of 327 (507303)
05-03-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by purpledawn
05-03-2009 5:43 AM


Re: Isaiah 53 - Verse 1 and 2
quote:
I don't appreciate having to do this again with a different translation, but I will use the NET Bible as you wish. Once more with feeling.
Sorry! You're free to use your Septuagint translation if you wish, or you might like the NIV (I think it leans more heavily toward the Septuagint?) I prefer NET or NASB.
It is best to work from the Hebrew, of course. Second best is to study a number of English translations. We are trying to get at the original meaning and message, and don't want to get misled by the wording of any particular translation.
quote:
That's past tense, not the future. ...
This rhetorical question is in the present, not future; so it has nothing to do with John 12:38. ...
Notice that the group is acknowledging that the servant suffered, not will suffer. Already done. ...
Please notice verse 53:2 is also past tense. He grew up, not will grow up.
Don't be so concerned about the English tenses. Here's where it is necessary to know a bit about biblical Hebrew. Hebrew verbs do not have past, present, and future tenses. They only have two "tenses", perfect and imperfect, which function differently than western tenses. Hebrew tenses do not designate time so much as certainty. Past events are generally (but not always) in the perfect. Future events are generally (but not always) in the imperfect. Divine prophecy, being certain, is usually in the perfect rather than the imperfect, and this is often translated to English as a past tense even though it was a future event at the time of writing.
quote:
The wording doesn't suggest an execution or described what we know of Jesus at his execution even poetically.
Sorry, my wording was probably not precise. Is 52:14-15 describes the events of Christ's passion, immediately before the cricifixion itself. There was scourging, beating, etc. as Mel Gibson showed in his movie "The Passion of the Christ".
quote:
So this also would not fit with Jesus. He didn't have a military.
This confused the Jews of the first century, too. This is suggested in Is 53:1--Messiah was not what they expected. Messiah was prophecied (and awaited) to be a king who would rule and set things right. Jesus was celebrated as this king only a week before His cricifixion, on what we call "Palm Sunday."
This detail DOES fit with Jesus, its just that this part of the prophecy is yet future (see, e.g., the last few chapters of Zechariah, the books of 1 and 2 Thessalonians). He will return as the conquering King and will set things right.
quote:
saiah 11:1 just says the person will come from Jesse's line. They're an agricultural people, so their metaphors are derived from what they know. It isn't the same word used in Isaiah 53:2. The word used here describes a branch growing out of a tree. Family tree.
Isaiah 53:2 is saying he grew up just like a young plant grows up. The word used here describes a growing plant, not a tree. Yes, a tree is a plant, but that isn't the image the word is to present.
Good point--I hadn't noticed that the two words were different in the original.
quote:
The NET notes suggest that the root out of parched soil is a metaphor that suggests insignificance.
I don't think Jesus was ever portrayed as growing up insignificant
Yes he was. He was born in a stable and raised in a hick town, a backwater (see Jn 1:46).
This prophecy was very unexpected for the future King of Israel (which is what Messiah was prophecied to be). Messiah would have a humble beginning, not a regal one. Jesus fulfilled this prophecy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by purpledawn, posted 05-03-2009 5:43 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by bluescat48, posted 05-03-2009 5:11 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 131 by purpledawn, posted 05-03-2009 5:27 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 129 of 327 (507317)
05-03-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by PaulK
05-03-2009 2:29 PM


Re: Isaiah
Apparently I did. I meant to reply to msg 25, but for some reason it came up as your message...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2009 2:29 PM PaulK has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 130 of 327 (507322)
05-03-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by kbertsche
05-03-2009 2:31 PM


Re: Isaiah 53 - Verse 1 and 2
This prophecy was very unexpected for the future King of Israel (which is what Messiah was prophecied to be). Messiah would have a humble beginning, not a regal one. Jesus fulfilled this prophecy.
Yes, according to works written years after his death.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by kbertsche, posted 05-03-2009 2:31 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 131 of 327 (507327)
05-03-2009 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by kbertsche
05-03-2009 2:31 PM


Re: Isaiah 53 - Verse 1 and 2
quote:
Sorry! You're free to use your Septuagint translation if you wish, or you might like the NIV (I think it leans more heavily toward the Septuagint?) I prefer NET or NASB.
It is best to work from the Hebrew, of course. Second best is to study a number of English translations. We are trying to get at the original meaning and message, and don't want to get misled by the wording of any particular translation.
The point is to be discussing from the same translation. I've already pointed out that translations vary and I don't want to spend time quibbling over translations. We don't have the original Hebrew and I don't read ancient Hebrew, do you?
quote:
Don't be so concerned about the English tenses. Here's where it is necessary to know a bit about biblical Hebrew. Hebrew verbs do not have past, present, and future tenses. They only have two "tenses", perfect and imperfect, which function differently than western tenses. Hebrew tenses do not designate time so much as certainty. Past events are generally (but not always) in the perfect. Future events are generally (but not always) in the imperfect. Divine prophecy, being certain, is usually in the perfect rather than the imperfect, and this is often translated to English as a past tense even though it was a future event at the time of writing.
So what you're telling me is that Isaiah just wasted his audiences times by telling them things that have nothing to do with them. How do we know that the prophets spoke of the future as though it had happened already? When did scholars figure that out? For the sake of argument I will go with the idea that this happens in some future.
quote:
Sorry, my wording was probably not precise. Is 52:14-15 describes the events of Christ's passion, immediately before the cricifixion itself. There was scourging, beating, etc. as Mel Gibson showed in his movie "The Passion of the Christ".
well good for Mel. No it does not describe the crucifixion. There's nothing in the text that says Jesus didn't look human. There is nothing in the text to suggest beating as the cause of disfigurement. I don't care what Mel's take on it is. The text is the issue here, not Hollywood. Have you read what the Gospels actually say?
Mark 15:
16. The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers.
17. They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him.
18. And they began to call out to him, "Hail, king of the Jews!"
19. Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him.
20. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.
Nothing in the Gospels suggest excessive beating to the point of disfigurement. If you disagree, show me the words, not Mel.
quote:
This confused the Jews of the first century, too. This is suggested in Is 53:1--Messiah was not what they expected. Messiah was prophecied (and awaited) to be a king who would rule and set things right. Jesus was celebrated as this king only a week before His cricifixion, on what we call "Palm Sunday."
You said look at the Hebrew and according to your NET Bible notes, the Hebrew says "arm of the Lord" which is a metaphor for military power. Jesus had no military power, so he did not show them the arm of the Lord. At the end of the poem (verse 12), per NET notes, the servant is compared here to a warrior who will be richly rewarded for his effort and success in battle. This keeps with the military theme of the question.
Celebrating him as King really counters verse 3.
53:3 He was despised and rejected by people, one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness; people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant.
The text gives the idea of a long period of time as in over a lifetime, not just a week or a few days.
quote:
This detail DOES fit with Jesus, its just that this part of the prophecy is yet future (see, e.g., the last few chapters of Zechariah, the books of 1 and 2 Thessalonians). He will return as the conquering King and will set things right.
You're adding to the text. Where does Isaiah 53 imply that events will be spaced out? (Really spaced out!)
It didn't fit Jesus at the time he was supposedly fulfilling the prophecy.
quote:
Yes he was. He was born in a stable and raised in a hick town, a backwater (see Jn 1:46).
This prophecy was very unexpected for the future King of Israel (which is what Messiah was prophecied to be). Messiah would have a humble beginning, not a regal one. Jesus fulfilled this prophecy.
Three wise men brought him valuable gifts. How insignificant is that?
Luke 2:40 And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor of God was upon him.
Luke 2:46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.
2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and with people.
From the NET notes:
Heb lacking of men. If the genitive is taken as specifying (lacking with respect to men), then the idea is that he lacked company because he was rejected by people. Another option is to take the genitive as indicating genus or larger class (i.e., one lacking among men). In this case one could translate, he was a transient
The Gospels do not present Jesus as someone who lacked company in his early life or his ministry.
You haven't convinced me that the words of Isaiah describe Jesus as he is depicted in the Gospels.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by kbertsche, posted 05-03-2009 2:31 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Peg, posted 05-04-2009 6:57 AM purpledawn has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 132 of 327 (507353)
05-04-2009 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by purpledawn
05-03-2009 9:35 AM


Re: Offspring and eternal life
purpledawn writes:
I've shown plenty of support for my position and reasoning.
You havnt shown how the bible supports your position though.
and as I said, the source you use is an anti messiah site so of course they deny that it is a messianic prophecy.
But there is evidence that Jews of the 1st century did believe Isaiah 53 was a messianic prophecy. In one rendering of Isaiah 52:13, the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel (1CE), as translated by J. F. Stenning, states: "Behold, my servant, the Anointed One (the Messiah), shall prosper."
Another one, the Babylonian Talmud (c.3 CE) says: "The Messiahwhat is his name?..." (Sanhedrin 98b)
The disciples of Jesus, who were Jews themselves, also believed it to be a Messianic prophecy and applied it to Jesus.
In Acts 8:28is the account about Philip teaching an Ethiopian man about the identity of the 'servant' of Isaiah 53 at Gods direction. If God believes that Isaiah 53 is a messianic prophecy, then i think we can trust it it really is seeing he is the author.
purpledawn writes:
So why are you trying to tell me it doesn't mean descendant?
Im saying its a 'spiritual' offspring as opposed to 'physical' offspring, which is what you are trying to apply.
Isaiah says that God "took delight in crushing him; he made him sick...set his soul as a guilt offering" How is it that he "will see his offspring, he will prolong his days"
The servant was put to death according to Isaiah. So the fact that he is able to 'see his offspring' and 'live prolonged days' must be not in a physical sense but in a spiritual sense. And if you consider what happened to Jesus, it is easy to apply it to him.
Shortly after gathering a small group of disciples, Jesus was put to death, but he was resurrected by God and given eternal life in Gods Kingdom. Today he is seeing his descendants in the form of the millions of Christian disciples who have put faith in him. Thats how one can have 'seed' or 'descendants' in a spiritual sense. Its as Paul said in Galatians 3:26
"29Moreover, if YOU belong to Christ, YOU are really Abraham’s seed, heirs with reference to a promise"
The 'seed' in this verse is not speaking of literal offspring, but spiritual offspring...those with faith in Jesus are considered Jesus spiritual offspring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by purpledawn, posted 05-03-2009 9:35 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Theodoric, posted 05-04-2009 9:09 AM Peg has replied
 Message 138 by purpledawn, posted 05-04-2009 11:41 AM Peg has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 133 of 327 (507355)
05-04-2009 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by purpledawn
05-03-2009 5:27 PM


Re: Isaiah 53 - Verse 1 and 2
purpledawn writes:
No it does not describe the crucifixion. There's nothing in the text that says Jesus didn't look human. There is nothing in the text to suggest beating as the cause of disfigurement.
Again here is another figurative expression. Isaiah's words refer to the humiliation that Jesus experienced. When he exposed the religious leaders of his day as hypocrites, liars, and murderers; and they responded by reviling him and accusing him of being a lawbreaker, a blasphemer, a deceiver and a seditionist against Rome. Their false accusations painted a distorted picture of who Jesus was and what he stood for.
Here was a perfect son of God being called a 'blasphemer'...a charge that deserved the death penalty by Jewish law.
purpledawn writes:
You said look at the Hebrew and according to your NET Bible notes, the Hebrew says "arm of the Lord" which is a metaphor for military power. Jesus had no military power, so he did not show them the arm of the Lord. At the end of the poem (verse 12), per NET notes, the servant is compared here to a warrior who will be richly rewarded for his effort and success in battle.
If you know the purpose of the messiah and what his death accomplished, then you will see how the 'arm of the lord' became evident when the prophecy was fulfilled.
Shortly before Jesus died he told his apostles:
JOhn 16:33"I have said these things to YOU that by means of me YOU may have peace. In the world YOU are having tribulation, but take courage! I have conquered the world" John 14:30 "I shall not speak much with YOU anymore, for the ruler of the world (the devil) is coming. And he has no hold on me"
By his integrity he completely defeated Satan the devil who attempted to get Jesus to be disloyal to God. This was Gods strong arm in action...the fact that Jesus stood firm against all that the devil threw at him, even in the reality of death. So Jesus was able to say he conquered the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by purpledawn, posted 05-03-2009 5:27 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by purpledawn, posted 05-04-2009 12:00 PM Peg has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 134 of 327 (507366)
05-04-2009 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Peg
05-04-2009 6:20 AM


Re: Offspring and eternal life
There are a couple of problems with your reasoning.
quote:
But there is evidence that Jews of the 1st century did believe Isaiah 53 was a messianic prophecy. In one rendering of Isaiah 52:13, the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel (1CE), as translated by J. F. Stenning, states: "Behold, my servant, the Anointed One (the Messiah), shall prosper."
Another one, the Babylonian Talmud (c.3 CE) says: "The Messiahwhat is his name?..." (Sanhedrin 98b)
Even if Rabbi's thought this was a a messianic prophecy, the dating is before Jesus. SO how could this be evidence that jesus fulfilled the prophecy? Also, if Rabbis of later times thought Jesus was the fulfillment wouldn't they proclaim him Messiah.
The whole Targum and Jonathan ben Uzziel issue is not as clearly accepted as you imply. I think christians get so caught up in finding evidence in Jewish writings for that divinity of Jesus that they refuse to look at it objectively.
Here is a good counterpoint to your argument.
There are few sources that deal with the Targum in full. Those that do, while they claim that this Targum is a support for the idea that Isaiah 53’s suffering servant is the Messiah, they will at the same time attack the author of the Targum for ‘completely twisting’ the text, or making a ’virtual rewrite’. If the issue were not so serious, it would be laughable.
You have to use multiple contortions and manipulations to use the writings of the Rabbis to support your contention that Jesus is the fulfillment of this prophecy.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Peg, posted 05-04-2009 6:20 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by jaywill, posted 05-04-2009 10:13 AM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 154 by Peg, posted 05-05-2009 7:20 AM Theodoric has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 135 of 327 (507367)
05-04-2009 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Theodoric
05-04-2009 9:09 AM


Re: Offspring and eternal life
For many of us Christian disciples it is sufficient that the New Testament tells us that Christ was the referant in Isaiah 53. We regard the New Testament not as some merely human faulty and error prone commentary of the Hebrew Bible, but as the inspired Hebrew canon, the word of God. It is authoritative.
So I would submit first and foremost where the word of God, the New Testament, tells us authoritatively that Christ is prophesied concerning in Isaiah 53 (some examples):
Isaiah 53:1 - Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of Jehovah been revealed ?
John 12:37 -39 - 'But though He [Jesus] had done so many signs before them, they did not believe into Him. That the word of the prophet Isaiah which he said might be fulfilled, "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For this reason they could not believe, BECAUSE AGAIN ISAIAH SAID ..." (my emphasis)
Romans 10:16 - 'But not all have obeyed the gospel, for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes out of hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.'
Isaiah 53:4 - "Surely, He has borne our sicknesses, And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God and afflicted."
Matt. 8:16,17 - ' ... and He casts out the spirits with a word, and all those who were ill He healed,
So that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, "He Himself took away our infirmaties and bore our deseases." '
Isaiah 53:5 - "But He was wounded beause of our transgressions; He was crushed because of our iniquities; The chastening for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we have been healed."
1 Peter 2:23,24 - "Who being reviled did not revile in return, suffering, He [Christ] did not threaten but kept committing all to Him who judges righteously.
Who Himself bore up our sins in His body on the tree, in order that we, having died to sins, might live to righteousness; by whose bruise you were healed."
Isaiah 53:6 - "We all like sheep have gone astray; Each one of us has turned to his own way. And Jehovah has caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him.
He was oppressed, and it was He who was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter ... so He did not open His mouth."
1 Peter 2:23 - [Christ] Who being reviled did not revile in return ... For you were like sheep being led astray, but you have now come to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls."
Obviously Peter is refering to the Suffering Servant as discribed in conjunction with Isaiah 53, in his thought Jesus Christ the referant of the prophecy.
The Ethopian servant was reading Isaiah 53 when the evangelist Philip assured him that the passage was concerning Jesus Christ:
'And he was ... reading the prophet Isaiah ... And when Philip ran up, he heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, Do you really know the things that you are reading?
And he said, How could I unless someone guides me? And he entreated Philip ... to sit with him. Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this: "As a sheep He was led to slaughter; and as a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so He does not open His mouth.
In His humiliation His judgment was taken away. Who shall declare His generation? For is life is taken away from the earth."
And the eunuch answered Philip and said, I beseech you, Concerning whom does the porophet say this? Concerning himself or concerning someone else?
And Philip opened his mouth, AND BEGINNING FROM THIS SCRIPTURE HE ANNOUNCED JESUS as the gospel to him." (See Acts 8:26-35 my emphasis)
These few examples show that God was indicating Jesus Christ in Isaiah 53. For the Christian this is authoritative. And there is no need to further defend against skepticism that the Holy Spirit, through Isaiah the prophet, prophesied concerning Jesus in Isaiah 53.
Aside from these explicit references the open hearted can compare quite a few other implicitly harmonious instances in Christ's life and mission, confirming that Isaiah prophesied concerning Him.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : Corrected reference Isaiah 53 not 9.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Theodoric, posted 05-04-2009 9:09 AM Theodoric has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024